Saturday, May 27, 2006

Are you upset about the possibility of gay marriage, but too stupid to form a coherent argument against it? Would you like to write a letter to the editor against gay marriage, but are just too illiterate to write anything more than: "Them homos is..."

It's pretty fun to use, and thankfully, Christian activists pretty much believe any lame, manufactured threat, or argument they're given, and then mindlessy repeat it anyway. I mean, it's not like they're going to think for themselves as is. So, this pretty much just cuts out the middle-man. In the classroom, we'd call this "plagiarism", but we're probably a bunch of fags anyway.

Here's the letter I generated. Maybe I'll send it to Mad Magazine:

For centuries now, in every civilized culture, marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been the building block of society. But it may not be true in America for long -- unless Congress approves the Marriage Protection Amendment.

(Um, right. But, how is gay marriage going to change heterosexual marriages? Why would this "building block" cease to exist if gays were married? And isn't the implication here that society itself would crumble without heterosexual marriage? So, again, why would straight marriages cease to exist if John and Andy were able to register for china? And why can't states make up their own minds about this issue? Why do we need to rewrite the Constitution? I mean, this building block crap isn't remotely convincing, and it doesn't come close to explaining why we need a new Amendment. But, you know, carry on.)

Yelling 'discrimination' is just one strategy the left has used to defeat this amendment.

(Hell, those jerks have even resorted to making intelligent arguments against it!)

They also have argued that gay marriage is a civil rights issue akin to the African-American struggle for equality. No less a civil rights icon than Jesse Jackson has denounced that claim, noting that 'gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution.'

(Which means?...

Jessie Jackson now has some sacred knowledge that the rest of us lack? Mr. 'Hymie Town' is our expert? And what do you want to bet that quote, when in context, wasn't as anti-gay marriage as they're framing it? And isn't the point here to re-write the Constitution to make it more anti-gay. Also, sorry, but blacks were never de facto criminals either. So, what is the point?)

Think of the MPA as a shield between our traditional values and radical judges intent on forcing their politically correct agenda on our nation. Without that shield, it's only a matter of time until marriage loses all meaning -- and social science data indicate children will suffer the most when that happens.

(See? Science says so too! In the study "Fag Marriage is Bad for the Children" Dr. Pat Robertson...

Look, obviously crumbling marriages are bad for children. They still haven't explained how it is that Claire and I are going to see John and Andy registering for wedding invitations, and decide that our own marriage just isn't worth it. Can you imagine that? Us in divorce court... 'Well, your honor, our own marriage is great. But, if gay guys can get married, well that means our marriage is sort of gay. We want a divorce right now!" I mean, it makes sense- it's just like how I can't own a house now, because gays can buy houses! Right?

And I love people who are using a bullshit passive-aggressive victim status to force the rest of the country to think, talk and live in ways that placate them accusing other people of being too "politically correct"! Not to mention trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own religious beliefs and then accusing others of being too "activist".)

We must help our senators see beyond the liberal spin and demand they vote the will of their constituents when they consider the amendment in early June.